If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Nvidia itself puts OpenGL 3.x support since 8800 series (DX 10 level support) ... claimed that he can do the same with a 7800 GTX.

No, I don't buy this.

you maybe not buying it and if it's OpenGL 2.x or OpenGL 3.x doesn't really matter to me considering the performance improvement his work brought as per above numbers. also, no one knows what are the specifications of the "RSX" chip inside PS3 - it's just rumored that it's close to "7800 GTX", but no one except Sony and nVidia really know. in any case, what did Alexander Betts works and gives great performance - what better prove than that. last, but not least - it could be CellBE provides additional computational power to the "RSX" chip for what's necessary additionally to OpenGL 2.x in order to have OpenGL 3.x. so, do you "DebianLinuxero" happen to know those things for sure and based on that make statements?

Comment

Nvidia itself puts OpenGL 3.x support since 8800 series (DX 10 level support) and this freak claimed that he can do the same with a 7800 GTX.

No, I don't buy this.

The point Betts made is that he started out with a legacy free API. Some new features of OpenGL 3.x were supported by older graphics hardware and were therefore released as OpenGL 2.x extensions as well. Betts says that he hasn't implemented full support for all OpenGL 3.1 features (which as you say isn't possible) but he also hasn't implemented most OpenGL 2.x functionality that isn't in GL3 and is probably not available in the RSX anyway (mostly FFP support).

Comment

The point Betts made is that he started out with a legacy free API. Some new features of OpenGL 3.x were supported by older graphics hardware and were therefore released as OpenGL 2.x extensions as well. Betts says that he hasn't implemented full support for all OpenGL 3.1 features (which as you say isn't possible) but he also hasn't implemented most OpenGL 2.x functionality that isn't in GL3 and is probably not available in the RSX anyway (mostly FFP support).

So he's not implementing GL3.1 at all then. You can't leave half it out and call it GL3.1. How would any application know what to use? you'd have to write app specifically for it. Why not just mesa to implement GL2.1 + extensions, seems like it would match the hw and be a lot more useful, the nvfs driver already exists and could be reused for many parts.

Like people can do what they like in their own time, but he's really just invented a non-round wheel.

Dave.

Comment

in my native language there is saying that i will try to translate and i hope keep its meaning "even the God is speechless when the numbers are talking". so, "non-round" or not, the numbers in this case make enough of a statement about the work:

Comment

The thing is he is talking about OpenGL core profile 3.1 and "parts of it" in one sentence. That really just confuses people. The core profiles are specifically meant to be a baseline with a known set of extensions supported to rely on, if you take only one of those extensions away it's not 3.1 core profile any more, but just 2.1 + extensions. If we did the same thing in Mesa nouveau would have been compliant to parts of OpenGL 3.1 core profile since years. What would that buy you?

Comment

in my native language there is saying that i will try to translate and i hope keep its meaning "even the God is speechless when the numbers are talking". so, "non-round" or not, the numbers in this case make enough of a statement about the work:

and before that the situation with PS3 in that area was pathetic. so, i don't get the criticism - it would be appropriate only in case someone did better job for the graphics support in PS3.

because *he* could do a better job, he could re-use mesa, and implement what the GPU actually supports, instead of claiming to try and implement something that he can't actually implement. Implementing half a GL3.1 isn't near as useful as implementing a GL2.1 + extensions using mesa.

In any case, even if it keeps a little secret, what it's clear is that :

Independent pixel/vertex shader architecture

OpenGL 3.x and further need a chip that supports unified shader architecture by hardware.
This is true for nVidia chips, for AMD/ATI's, for Intel's ...

it could be CellBE provides additional computational power to the "RSX" chip for what's necessary additionally to OpenGL 2.x in order to have OpenGL 3.x. so, do you "DebianLinuxero" happen to know those things for sure and based on that make statements?

I really doubt it. I haven't seen an OpenGL implementation (nor Direct 3D) that by support of the CPU improved or emulated such architectural lack of features like unified shaders.

And I could say the same to you; you don't seem to know how the implementation is, or if Cell really matters, but you are wondering too.

Summary : I don't critiquize the effort of making a better driver, a more efficient or with much features/extensions.
Simply, I don't buy the OpenGL 3.1 claim of that man, cause the hardware architecture limitations.